Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Is Not Superior to Optimal Medical Therapy in Chronic Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 9, 2025

Author Spotlight: Enhancing Coronary Artery Revascularization
Published on: September 15, 2023
Ibadete Bytyçi1,2, Defrim Morina1, Sefer Bytyqi3
1Clinic of Cardiology, University Clinical Centre of Kosovo, 10000 Prishtina, Kosovo.
Insights
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) offers no long-term survival or symptomatic benefits for chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) patients over optimal medical therapy (OMT). Early quality of life improvements with PCI do not persist long-term.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Interventional Cardiology
- Clinical Trials
Background:
- Conflicting evidence exists on the benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus optimal medical therapy (OMT) for chronic coronary syndrome (CCS).
- Evaluating the comparative effectiveness of PCI and OMT on survival and symptom relief in CCS is crucial.
Purpose of the Study:
- To conduct a meta-analysis evaluating the short- and long-term clinical benefits of PCI compared to OMT in patients with CCS.
- To assess the impact of PCI on major adverse cardiac events, mortality, myocardial infarction, revascularization, stroke, and quality of life.
Main Methods:
- Meta-analysis of fifteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 16,443 patients with CCS.
- Endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), urgent revascularization, stroke, and quality of life (QoL).
- Evaluated clinical endpoints at very short (≤3 months), short- (<12 months), and long-term (≥ 12 months) follow-up.
Main Results:
- At a mean follow-up of 27.7 months, PCI showed similar risks of MACE, all-cause mortality, CV mortality, and MI compared to OMT.
- No significant differences were observed in stroke or hospitalizations for anginal symptoms between PCI and OMT groups.
- PCI patients experienced improved QoL in the very short-term, but these benefits diminished by long-term follow-up.
Conclusions:
- Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not provide significant long-term clinical benefit compared to optimal medical therapy (OMT) for patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS).
- The findings suggest a need for careful patient selection for PCI, emphasizing that it does not improve long-term survival or reduce major adverse cardiac events.
- While PCI may offer short-term quality of life improvements, these are not sustained, reinforcing the primary role of OMT in CCS management.
Abstract:
(1) Background and Aim: Conflicting evidence exists regarding the benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on survival and symptomatic relief of patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) compared with optimal medical therapy (OMT). This meta-analysis is to evaluate the short- and long-term clinical benefit of PCI over and above OMT in CCS. (2) Methods: Main endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), urgent revascularization, stroke hospitalization, and quality of life (QoL). Clinical endpoints at very short (≤3 months), short- (<12 months), and long-term (≥ 12 months) follow-up were evaluated. (3) Results: Fifteen RCTs with a total of 16,443 patients with CCS (PCI n = 8307 and OMT n = 8136) were included in the meta-analysis. At mean follow-up of 27.7 months, the PCI group had similar risk of MACE (18.2 vs. 19.2 %; p < 0.32), all-cause mortality (7.09 vs. 7.88%; p = 0.56), CV mortality (8.74 vs. 9.87%; p = 0.30), MI (7.69 vs. 8.29%; p = 0.32), revascularization (11.2 vs. 18.3%; p = 0.08), stroke (2.18 vs. 1.41%; p = 0.10), and hospitalization for anginal symptoms (13.5 vs. 13.9%; p = 0.69) compared with OMT. These results were similar at short- and long-term follow-up. At the very short-term follow-up, PCI patients had greater improvement in the QoL including physical limitation, angina frequency, stability, and treatment satisfaction (p < 0.05 for all) but such benefits disappeared at the long-term follow-up. (4) Conclusions: PCI treatment of CCS does not provide any long-term clinical benefit compared with OMT. These results should have significant clinical implications in optimizing patient's selection for PCI treatment.
More Related Videos
18:11A Research Method For Detecting Transient Myocardial Ischemia In Patients With Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome Using Continuous ST-segment Analysis
Published on: December 28, 2012
10:28Interventional Diagnostic Procedure: A Practical Guide for the Assessment of Coronary Vascular Function
Published on: March 15, 2022
Related Concept Videos
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Angina IV: Management
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome I: Introduction
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies